Systemic Reform

Center for Children’s Advocacy is reforming justice for Connecticut’s most vulnerable children and youth.

Sheff v. O’Neill

Sheff v. O’Neill is a landmark civil rights lawsuit that seeks educational equality. The plaintiffs continue to advocate for the State of Connecticut to uphold the constitutional rights of children in Hartford to an equal educational opportunity.

Alicia B.

Substandard alternative education offered to expelled children disproportionately affects students of color and violates equal protection guarantees of both the state and U.S. constitutions. Alicia B. names Bloomfield, Hartford and Manchester’s public school districts, the state Department of Education and the state Board of Education as defendants.

Alicia B. Settlement Agreement (July 2018): Improvements for Education for Expelled Students in Connecticut. Alicia B. vs. Malloy, challenging the inadequate education provided to expelled students in Connecticut, has fully settled. This settlement represents a significant step forward for the education of expelled students in Connecticut. In Alicia B., Center for Children’s Advocacy (CCA) with its co-counsel, National Center for Youth Law and K&L Gates LLP, represented two middle school students who effectively received no education during their expulsions, despite their right under the Connecticut state constitution to an education. As a result of the litigation, the State passed legislation requiring that expelled students be educated in accordance with standards,which included significant feedback from CCA and NYCL, developed to ensure their educational progress. In addition to those reforms, the settlement requires that the State issue additional guidance to school districts, provide resources on reducing expulsions to school districts, families and the community, and monitor and address racial disparities in expulsions. Previous settlements in the case had ensured that individual plaintiffs were made whole for their loss of education.

Expulsion Guidance issued as a result of the Alicia B. settlement, issued by the State Department of Education, clarifies circumstances under which a school district can expel a student, the requirement that students must have sufficient notice that the offense may be expellable, procedures for expulsion hearings including notice provided in language understandable to the family at least 5 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, right to request a postponement, right to examine evidence and cross examine witnesses, and provision allowing students to petition for early readmission. When students who are expelled move between school districts, the new district must adopt the decision of the previous school district through a formal hearing process should they wish to continue the expulsion.

KinderCare: Daycare Access for Children with Diabetes

KinderCare Education of Portland, Oregon, has entered into a settlement agreement to resolve allegations that KinderCare’s child care programs and other services were not accessible to children with Type 1 diabetes who are dependent on insulin injections, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). KinderCare operates approximately 1,800 facilities in the U.S., and the settlement agreement applies to all of KinderCare’s facilities.

The complaint was filed with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut by the Center for Children’s Advocacy alleging violations of Title III of the ADA. Specifically, the complaint alleges that KinderCare refused to assist two children who had been diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes with insulin administration. A third complaint against KinderCare by the parent of another child with Type 1 diabetes was filed by CCA during the course of the investigation. The government determined that KinderCare’s national policy and practice was that KinderCare staff would not directly administer insulin to children via a syringe or pen. Instead, KinderCare required parents of the children identified in the complaint to appear at its facility to administer the insulin to their children or hire another person, at the parents’ own expense, to do so.

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation. KinderCare is a private entity that operates child care facilities that are places of “public accommodation” within the meaning of Title III of the ADA.

Under the agreement, KinderCare is obligated to take critical steps toward improving access for children with Type 1 diabetes, including revising its policies and procedures, revising its training, and performing ongoing assessments of the need for reasonable accommodations.

Norwalk Public Schools

Norwalk Public Schools fail to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to students as a result of violations of Child Find obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). On October 4, 2018, the Center for Children’s Advocacy, Norwalk Special Education Attorney Robin Keller, and SEEK (Special Education Equity for Kids of CT), filed a complaint with the Connecticut State Department of Education (SDE) alleging that Norwalk Public Schools (NPS) systemically and pervasively violates federal and state laws that guarantee all children the right to FAPE. The 17 Norwalk students named in the complaint represent a diverse cross-section of age, disability, socio-economic class, race, and ethnicity, and are representative of other Norwalk children similarly situated.

Bridgeport Public Schools

Bridgeport Public Schools have failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to students as a result of violations of Child Find obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Child Find requires that at the beginning of each school year, districts must have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) in effect for each child with a disability. Special education and related services must conform to the IEP for the individual student.

Medical Transport for Low-Income Families

Complaint filed against the Connecticut Department of Social Services and LogistiCare Solutions for ongoing violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act that jeopardize the health and well-being of low-income children who need non-emergency medical transportation.

New Visions

Hartford Public Schools systematically and pervasively denies expelled special education students their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by failing to provide special education and related services to confer meaningful educational benefit.

CT Technical High School System

The Center for Children’s Advocacy and Greater Hartford Legal Aid filed a complaint against the Connecticut Technical High School System alleging that CTHSS applies admissions policies in ways that discriminate against students with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Emily J.

Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit to challenge the conditions of confinement in Connecticut’s Juvenile Detention Centers and the treatment of children confined in those facilities. Overcrowded conditions at Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven Juvenile Detention Centers , lack of adequate medical and mental health care, classification system, staffing, recreational, visitation, and educational opportunities, the lack of alternative placements and the lack of appropriate planning for these children violated their rights.